Modupe Olalere
The recent whirlwind of diplomacy related to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has raised a lot of eyebrows, as U.S. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are all negotiating at high stakes. The larger disagreement is whether or not the sovereignty of Ukraine is being honourably defended or quietly given up for peace. Trump likes to portray himself as the ultimate deal maker, but he frequently proposes terms that critics say are likely to please Putin, while still putting a veneer of loyal territory defence. The whole situation complicates the great game that is simmering in front of us in real play on the world stage, from Zelensky’s apparent denial to give up any amount of Ukrainian territory on one hand, to Trump insisting on a deal that includes territorial concessions on the other.
The Stakes of the Trump-Putin-Zelensky Engagements
The ongoing war in Ukraine, initially beginning with Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and escalating to a full-scale war in 2022, remains fresh as an open sore in international diplomacy. President Zelensky’s latest meetings with world leaders, particularly in Washington, have drawn attention to the fact that Ukraine envisions any peace deal as linking the integrity of Ukrainian territory.
Zelensky has repeatedly said any peace deal must honour Ukraine’s sovereignty, without accepting any ceding of Crimea or eastern Ukraine territory to Russia; “We will never agree on anything that infringes on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” said Zelensky in a recent address. This position represents clearly defined red lines set by Ukraine’s national interests and political support from many Western democracies, challenging Russia’s expansionist ambitions.
President Donald Trump’s arrival in the diplomatic argument creates a grave complication. Trump has explicitly supported the proposition that Ukraine should accept compromises of territory, including Russian sovereignty over Crimea and parts of Donbas. “A very quick peace deal could be made if Ukraine were willing to give up some land,” Trump said in a news interview, adding that Zelensky should ” sit down” with Putin and finish up quickly, make the best deal possible, and save a lot of deaths. Statements of this nature are alarming to Ukraine’s Western allies, who interpret them as appeasement.
For his part, Putin has been explicit about the terms: Ukraine must renounce its claims to Crimea and recognise the self-proclaimed independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Putin has indicated that if Ukraine agrees to these terms, Russia would stop its military advances in southern Ukraine, an area of strategic interest to Moscow. “We do not demand anything more than we already own,” said Putin, implying that accepting these territorial changes is non-negotiable.
Trump’s proposed negotiation process consists of three steps and features an eventual bilateral summit with Putin, Zelensky, and Trump. Trump believes this summit will result in a “very fast peace,” while critics believe the three-phase process could undermine Ukraine’s legitimate claims on territory and bolster Putin’s territorial aspirations.
The Diplomatic Tightrope and Competing Interests
Players must use diplomacy to balance a minefield of geopolitical interests. In Washington, a high-profile summit gathered EU and NATO leaders to show a unified front in their commitment to Ukraine’s independence.
European officials are adamant that peace cannot be achieved through territorial concessions to Russia. The EU’s foreign policy chief publicly stated, “Ukraine’s sovereignty is sacred,” reaffirming our support for sanctions against Russia and military support for Ukraine in its war efforts. The NATO Secretary-General insisted on restraint, adding that we are not in favour of legitimising territorial acquisition through force.
Trump’s comments on a deal contingent on considerable Ukrainian concessions, in line with his proposal for favourable access to U.S. resources in exchange for credible financial aid, made some allies anxious. He also commented on mutual, equitable land use between Ukraine and Russia. Zelensky has openly rejected such proposals. “Our resources are for our people—not something to trade,” was Zelensky’s strong response.
At times, Trump’s rhetoric regarding Zelensky has been very sharp and dismissive. Most egregious of all, referring to Zelensky as a “dictator” helped to amplify the Kremlin’s disinformation narratives and made it difficult for Ukrainian President Zelensky to keep a unified front with Western supporters.
Some observers have pointed out differences between Zelensky’s emphasis on national sovereignty and Trump’s view of a series of transactional actions, which appear to be a fast solution to the crisis at the expense of establishing long-term stability. Zelensky is trying to walk a diplomatic tightrope by facing pressure from both Moscow and Washington while also trying to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Russia’s strategy remains straightforwardly focused on maintaining the upper hand. Putin has made it a point not to publicly negotiate with Zelensky because of his reluctance to enter a process he feels is not genuine and the dictates of the peace, undermining Russian strategic objectives. As a result, analysts view his role as a calculated decision to keep Ukraine under duress and to capitalise on concessions on territory.
Trump’s ambition to return to power influences his approach to Ukraine in American domestic politics. His desire to be seen as a dealmaker contradicts the broader aims of foreign U.S. policy to contain Russian aggression.
Is Ukraine’s Sovereignty Being Negotiated Away?
At its core, the issue is whether Ukraine’s independence is being upheld or relinquished. President Zelensky’s persistent avowals indicate that they will never accept concessions unless they are made through donor funds. For Zelensky, peace cannot mean sacrificing Ukrainian independence or territorial integrity.
“We’re talking about peace, we mean fairness to provide Ukraine security and sovereignty,” Zelensky said. The Ukrainian parliament has passed legislation forbidding any consideration for territory given up in Crimea or Donbas, an indication of a solid domestic mandate against land concession.
Trump’s insistence that concessions should be made offers a different view of what may happen. His plea for Ukraine to accept Crimea and a large part of eastern Ukraine under Russia’s control glaringly aligns with Moscow’s views. This brings to attention a peace agreement that rewards aggression instead of upholding international law.
For international legal authorities, such a compromise would violate the principles of sovereignty set out in the UN Charter, while setting devastating precedents for the rest of the world. Effectively, endorsing borders altered with military force is an acceptable standard to revert to for future armed conflict, and international unilateral action that results in a negotiated settlement.
Putin’s hardline position is unchanged. He sees a direct summit with Zelensky as a potential political danger, but one that could guarantee Russian gains if couched in Moscow’s terms. “We are open to negotiations, but only from a position of strength,” Putin said.
Discussions of a Putin-Zelensky summit are slow and loaded with dangers of further diplomatic failure. Western officials suggest that caution is necessary, since a meeting at this point could lead to a loss of ongoing support to Ukraine, and possibly complicate the negotiating position of Ukraine should there be a meeting.
The larger question remains whether the peace process is a genuine attempt to end the war or simply a geopolitical opportunity in which the peace process leaves Ukraine in the middle. The existence of large power actors with competing interests, and possible exclusion of Ukraine’s voice in the negotiation process, raises questions about what support for a potential peace deal would look like, its legitimacy, and whether, if achieved, that peace would be durable.
In all the while, Ukraine continues to pay the war bill, where day after day of fighting disrupts lives, economies, and regional stability. The delicate dance between diplomacy, pressure, and armed struggle will conjure realities of today and tomorrow from Kyiv.
The unfolding saga of Trump, Putin, and Zelensky engaging on the global stage highlights the fragility of smaller nations caught in the competition of major powers. More than a dispute over territory and influence, it challenges international norms. As these superpowers negotiate, the future of Ukraine—its borders, government, and future—depends on them. As the world continues to watch these vital negotiations, everyone has to consider whether they will lead to stability or instability in a critical region.